This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
12th- 13th December, 2007
• There was strong consensus on the need to measure economic. o 2. Note all presentations from this conference are on CD-ROM. • Some debates begun at this conference need more discussion. in 6 or 12 months. If a development outcome is to alleviate poverty. • Agreement was reached that this is just the first step. • It was also agreed that Eelco Baan (SNV Task Force Leader VC&D establishes a connection to the impact measure group of the Donor committee on small enterprise development. Therefore a further forum. Need to specify what development outcomes are being targeted before starting projects and interventions. we may be duplicating efforts. • It was agreed that we link to larger forums discussing VCAs and indicators and that the discussion should progress further. We need to consider these issues when we’re scoping. • Discussing common issues is extremely useful. 2 . planning and implementing projects. Networking at this conference has been extremely successful. This was the first time we could gather many different types of expertise to debate these issues. social and environmental indicators.• • Black text = ideas presented by speakers Grey text = ideas discussed by audience Abbreviations F&B SME VC VCA Food and Beverage Small and Medium Enterprises Value Chain Value Chain Analysis Summary of Conference and Agreed Actions Kate Lloyd-Williams (IFC-MPDF) • This conference had a very ambitious agenda. • Key issues for reflection include: o 1. An agreed-upon methodology with a core set of indicators should allow us to become more efficient. While working. o 5. Sharing our knowledge can help avoid this by creating linkages. Should we adopt common definitions and indicators across projects and countries? o 4. need to define ‘Who are the poor?’ and ‘How do we measure poverty?’ o 3. Bigger projects require more rigorous assessments. Need to achieve a balance between diagnostic and the implementation of projects. is considered.
3. segmentation by characteristics. enterprise and household levels to properly evaluate impacts. The Transit Region: Transport system. This paper appears on conference CDROM.). Visitor generating regions (demand side): Domestic & international visitors. law and order. destination. • Need to define who counts as poor. and can be focussed on benefits to women. Support services sector: Operations which support front line operators (eg. to provide maximum benefit for the poor? This is the main reason for doing VCAs. Amenities. fauna and habitats. VCAs need to be integrated as one part of traditional research methods. monitoring and impact assessment. and not do VCAs for their own sake. 6. 3 . the environment.Discussion Notes/Recommendations DAY ONE Tourism Linkages – Tourism as a System Prof. We need to understand the sector. US$2 per day. The Destination (Supply side): Accommodation. Government: Government is responsible for regulations. VCs can be useful to identify these operators. 5. and where is highest potential to increase benefits? • Analysing VCs – where to intervene. VCAs allow us to identify specific viabilities in supply chains that could be utilized for poverty alleviation. • Questions of measurement . Synthesis of Value Chain Analysis in Tourism – Tourism Baselines and Measuring Impact in Tourism Chain Development John Hummel (SNV Asia) and Kate Lloyd-Williams (IFC-MPDF) • Overview of paper by Caroline Ashley and Jon Mitchell. which reaches into almost every industrial and service sector. • VCAs focus on the linkages between elements of the value chain. infrastructure and international treaties. by linking the demand side of the system to impoverished communities or poor and disadvantaged segments of populations. • Sustainable tourism is a tool for eliminating poverty. 2.need to maintain the same indicators in baseline studies. accountants. • Outlined objectives of conference: 1. yacht builders etc. Reflection: Insights into tourism value chain work being done. by main purpose for trip. • Importance of diagnosis – where do the poor gain most benefits. or based on regional norms/factors? • How can we collect data from the bottom rungs of the supply chain? From the ‘poor’ themselves? This type of data can sometimes be very sketchy. • How to value non-financial impacts on communities? • VCA can only be one part of a broader study. and usually addresses both economic flows and governance issues between levels. policies. What definition of ‘poverty’ do we use – US$1 per day. emphasising the degree of interaction between them: 1. 4. Community: Social and Cultural effects of tourism on communities. Trevor Sofield (ADB/MTDP Cambodia) • Tourism Systems Exercise – showing the complexity of the tourism industry system. Access. including sector. • Explained seven structures of the tourism system. Activities. demographics. minorities etc. land use. • Monitoring & Evaluation – need to look at several levels. interaction with modes of transport. wineries. • Small errors in data collection or analysis can lead to incorrect analysis. • This can be done by assessing tourism chains or sub-chains. 7. Bio-physical Environment: Effects of tourism on flora.
culture and nature. infrastructure development. craft. supply and yield indicators) 3. overall context and changes in product change. Context (policy priorities. Distribution of promotional material. to allow the tracking of changes over time among a fixed group. Samples take a long time to complete. • Objectives: Economic growth. general investments by private and public sector). fisheries. skills and capacities of support organizations. average length of stay). • At present. • Key indicators in Baseline study: 1. there is no analysis of who is ‘poor’ and who is not. at the cost of $40 000. restaurants. SNV can then identify intervention strategies from these VCs. 4. a development plan and set of guidelines is necessary for maintaining continuity throughout long term projects such as this. Samples were taken from each of these.2. Empowerment assessment (dialogues with key players. Not enough information freely available for comprehensive baseline study. capacity building in local communities project. environmental assessment. and community empowerment. 2. Agreement on a common set of indicators for tourism VCAs (demand. • SNV Honduras focuses on Tela Bay. • Tourism as a means to reach these objectives. Non-financial volumes (sample of tourist arrivals. to identify interventions to develop the entire destination and develop particular aspects of the value chain. Kampong Thom. • How do we measure the impact of our interventions?: Baseline study from which we measure economic growth. analysis of major problems. • Key activities of project: Participatory needs assessment. including fisheries and shellfish. stock taking of infrastructure. creation and support of income generating activities. 3. supporting the ‘Future Cancun’ development of hotels and resorts. not an objective in itself.) • Sub-sectors analysed included hotels. especially with local populations. • Future studies will measure changes in outcome. support to Provincial Tourism Task Force. Financial flows (sample of tourist expenditure at destination. and to measure final outcomes and impacts. especially at enterprise level. analysis of attractions. Presentations: Indicators in Tourism Value Chain Research and Lessons Learnt Sambo Preykuk. competitiveness indicators. tour operators. • Challenge is to entice tourists to stay longer than their lunch breaks. • SNV Honduras has identified the need to develop coherent indicators for baselines. • Money flows will be measured mostly through wellbeing and livelihood improvement. Big tour operators do not want to divulge sales information. • Challenges Encountered: 1. market segmentation. 3. Determining the next step for tourism value chains and impact assessments. and is the third largest sector of the national industry. asking ‘Are communities involved in the project and its planning?’) Baseline Development in Honduras Toot Oostveen (SNV Honduras) • Tourism in Honduras is growing rapidly. 2. environmental protection. • Objectives of SNV’s baseline study: to act as a combination baseline study/ diagnostic. and also the minority village of Miami. market trends. Tracing remittances 4 . • Five sample studies have been amalgamated into baseline study. Cambodia Peter Bolster (GTZ) • Outline of poverty alleviation through tourism project in Kampong Thom. • Pre-study assumption: most poor were involved in food and beverage chain. • VCs have been used to map policies and initiatives for employment in community based tourism and visitor demand impacts. • Project in place two years already.
5. Strategic Assessment of Tourism in Rwanda Julie Graham (SNV Rwanda) • Rwanda has two main tourist products. 3. so it is a competitive destination. • The Rwandan SNV project sketched the tourism value chain and revenues. such as that completed at Luang Prabang. • Comparisons were made with outer destinations. • Clarification sought for why price competitiveness was not one of the criteria for destination competitiveness in baseline study. This road builds economic opportunities. SMEs could be tapped to build pro-poor linkages. Information on number of poor people involved is difficult to access. Opportunity to build cultural tourism as third major tourist product. • It will inform future work for the tourism master plan by the Ministry of Tourism. • VCA was used to identify intervention points in existing value chain with potential for maximum pro-poor impact. Wages and supply chain were equal contributors to pro-poor income as F & B provision. due to the smaller number of beds in high-end lodges. 3. • Study was conducted in partnership with the Savan Institute of Management (Lao PDR) and Hue Economics College (Viet Nam). 2. Enterprise inventory is essential. Lao PDR Tony Donovan (SNV Laos) • Route #9 is the ‘East-West Economic Corridor’ linking Lao PRD. It is not a complete research. It provides some data for decision making. requiring less services. Difficulty/transparency issues in tracing flow of donations made by tourists. Answer: Per bed night. Both types of tourism were indicated throughout the paper. • Clarification sought about whether mid-range lodges are more pro-poor than high-end lodges on an absolute scale. 2. Data on who is poor is essential. including in tourism. Hotels and joint ventures had considerable impact on PPI flows. • Challenges: 1. on the whole. • Clarification sought for text missing on a slide: ‘Money flows will be [text missing]. Road #9 – Identifying Opportunities for the poor. 2. • Findings: 1. Difficulty of defining who is ‘poor’. How did you get information about donations being made? Answer: Research (500 exit surveys at airports and interviews with tourists at tourist sites) had already been completed on this topic. Are you going to focus on building gorilla tourism as well.’ lasting only ten days. 4. Honduras is cheap. • Donations are often forgotten in impact assessments. • What recommendations were made for increasing pro-poor income? Answer: In business tourism.(received by 75% of households in Garifuna community) is difficult. There exists opportunity to increase supply in this chain. as money flows analysis in this study is based only on samples of tourists and industry’. Answer: ‘Money flows analysis will not be as comprehensive as other studies. Answer: Price competitiveness is graphed at enterprise level. • Gorilla tourists also have a high spend per capita. mountain gorilla viewing and business tourism (NGO sector). but was ‘quick and dirty. through increased shopping for handicrafts etc. • VCs were used to map flows of income from tourist. or per bed night. through hotel to staff and vendors of F & B. Governance and other issues in the value chain were not addressed. Identified significant opportunities to increase local supply in the F & B chain. and the impact this had on the study. but important. • Market segmentation: mid-range lodges were more pro-poor than high-end lodges. Vietnam and Myanmar. • Implications for Diagnostic information needs: 1. 5 . Thailand. These surveys were used as data for this report. or just focus on business tourism? Answer: There is no reason why both types of tourism should not be increased.
which account for 96% of Cambodia’s tourism. key indicators of pro-poor benefit included local economic impact. domestic tourists. tracking their expenditure. • VCA serves as a part of a ‘big picture’ diagnostic. satisfaction rate and reasons for dissatisfaction. and identify interventions that drive both sector growth and equality. Tracing remittances. and resource assets (eg. Difficulty in achieving accuracy of flows of PPI. gender and social impacts. and especially pro-poor tourism projects. hotels and guest houses. • Identified who the ‘poor’ are: people in poor districts in urban and rural areas. to encourage people to stop. so need to be able to demonstrate this to the donors. minorities. or just as trickle down effect? • Need to analyse who benefits from tourism dollars. • Research contractors also studied tourists in-depth. which include traditional types of research and VCAs at destination. Viet Nam needs to develop attractions in Quang Tri. demand. Donors need return on investment. not numbers building). • Clarification sought on the large differences between pro-poor income as a percentage of total 6 . Challenges in access to capital. 3. at individual destination level. Difficulty in defining who is ‘poor’. jobs. Accommodation. sustainability. Is Angkor at carrying capacity? If so. ‘Corridor’ of Road #9 needs more attractions to encourage people to stop en route. The complexity of such studies. • Challenge of poverty profiling – who is ‘poor’? Poverty as dictated by background of workers in a sector. Cutting data into different ways provided more insights into the situation. investment and infrastructure. street-side stalls. Need to improve transportation along road. 3. tuk tuk drivers and other service providers. • In addition to these market aggregates. Thai tours. restaurants. this project looks at supply. by selecting the most high impact interventions. Sihanoukville and Kratie. • Results were aggregated at national level. Phnom Penh. or by income per day? We need a clear agreement on the models and assumptions used to define poverty. To optimize tourist interventions in provinces. 2. • Study focussed on Siem Reap. • Supply side survey looked at tour operators. • Recommendations/ Identified interventions: 1. • Issues/ Challenges: 1. Vietnamese group traffic. • Challenges: 1. need to analyse whether costs and impacts over time are of benefit to the donor. environmental impacts. To identify prospects for capacity building of stakeholders. 2. tour groups. including business traffic. 2. and the potential to improve the big picture through growth. • All these figures can then be compared to similar destinations within Cambodia and overseas. DMZ tours (in Central Viet Nam).• VCA Objectives: 1. Donors give money to alleviate poverty. 2. Indicators in Tourism Value Chain Research and Lessons Learnt: Assessing the Impact of Tourism in Cambodia Kate Lloyd-Williams (IFC-MPDF) • Does tourism really impact on poverty? Can it impact in a specific way. 4. shops. • Strategic Issues and impediments to pro-poor tourism growth: 1. sector. • Once suitable interventions are identified. and into key inbound market segments. to benchmark their potential. 4. sub sector and sub value chain level. Holistically. retail and restaurant clusters. which might impact on the flow of pro-poor income. • Question of how to move to action. need to focus on yield. 2. 3. Transportation issues. especially in Savannakhet and in Special Economic Zones need attention. Popularity of ‘corridor tourism’ where few visitors stay a night. • Need to balance between increasing visitor numbers and yields per visitor. Lack of integrated planning between regional and national authorities. To understand the broader impacts of tourism on people in study areas. • VC conducted for main types of travellers. • Question also of how to predict all the impacts of an interventions. • 8000 exit surveys of tourists tallied expenditure. caravan tourists and independent European travellers.
aesthetic impacts.4% of total sample indicated there were economic benefits from tourism. seasonal earnings from tourism. and 4 or 5 more years M & E are required before conclusions can be firmly made. Also need to measure impact on tourist’s social lives – what are the benefits to the tourist? • Environmental impact indicators: 1. social. and 68. economic diversification. in the first year of site operation. we found that 97. over 70% indicated cultural and social benefits.4% environmental and structural benefits. the Nature Association. The difference indicates that destinations which may appear similar can in fact be very different in terms of VCs. expectations of tourism’s impact on economic. growth in kitchen gardens to service tourist needs. job creation and employment. 2. Are these differences the result of definitions and methodologies used in the VCAs performed? This would indicate the extent to which definitions affect results. pro-conservation awareness. resource use. way of life. Consultation with 7 . impacts on wildlife. • Direct economic impacts of tourism: Government revenue. • Findings: After one year of impact assessments. obstruction on other regular works. • Socio-cultural indicators (community level): gender and age of service providers. but this project attempts to boost its credentials as a nature destination. SNV and the GEF Small Grants Programme (UNDP). cultural. tourism income spending. • Collaboration is the key to poverty alleviation. a baseline VCA was developed with indicators including average incomes. infrastructural development. values. Impact Measurement in Tourism Value Chains in Developing and Transition Economies Fabrice Leclercq (ITC) • Screening of video showing the ‘Coconut Coast’ pro-poor tourism project in coastal Brazil.income between Luang Prabang (high) and Siem Reap (very low). eagerness to speak English. pollution and waste outputs. willingness to integrate with tourists. SME development. food and water adequacy to measure future developments. ruralurban migration. • Subsequently. A tourism resource inventory and demographics were also collected. understanding of host-guest relationship. • Bhutan is mostly seen as a cultural destination. The data and approach of these two studies were largely similar. resource use conflicts. installation of solar lamps and cooking gas. 62 tourists at the target site completed tourism impact survey. environmental and infrastructure. Nabji – Value Chain Development and Impact Measurement Pelden Dorji (Department of Tourism. pro-conservation attitudes. It has been in operation one year. active since 2003. expenditures from tourism-related earnings. This is part of the Export Led Poverty Reduction Program. nature of relationship with tour operators. so individual assessments are required. Long term – improvements in cattle breed. As part of this. child labour. consumption patterns. Association of Business Tourism Operators. Answer: No. minor community disputes. Short term – garbage control and sanitation. The reality is that the destinations are very different. occupations. Stakeholders for this project included Department of Tourism. the results are not the product of different definitions and methodologies used. crime rates and prostitution. and the tourism industry in each is very different. • A tourism VC was conducted to determine how stakeholders could best contribute to raising PPI in communities. • Long term indicators of socio-cultural change: Impacts on population structure. Bhutan) • Bhutan has recently piloted a community based nature tourism program. change of habitat. aimed at poverty alleviation.
Regional Co-operation. 2. Tourist satisfaction levels were also collected annually. high levels of illiteracy. as records are rarely kept. • Monitoring conducted annually. 3. • Social indicators included village solidarity and participation of women and ethnic minorities in tourism business. Pro-poor Tourism. • Community satisfaction rates were also noted: Do people like tourists? Are they satisfied with incomes? Are they bored of tourists? Is tourism causing conflicts? Is tourism having clearly negative impacts on children. • Focus was on provincial and destination level. • Indicators used: income. VCA data can be used to justify the intervention. • Challenge of collecting specific income data at village level. textiles and agriculture sub-sectors. • Impact measurement is crucial to showing progress towards donor goals in poverty reduction. This project had 3 components: 1. Monitoring was conducted at enterprise. • Data was collected by purpose-trained monitoring teams. 2003-2007. respect for social and cultural heritage. • Such projects are only worth the investment if suitable interventions are identified. • Villagers were interviewed about whether they protected natural and cultural resources because of their value to tourism. • How can we begin to increase community responsibility for data collection? Motivate local officials? Simplify it so that communities can collect information on their own? • Question: Are there negative environmental impacts taking place as a result of tourism? Answer: Research is ongoing. local capacity building. Improving infrastructure. and spread out over Lao. • Program has capacity building focus. equity. and tourism enterprises were supported at household level. Social and Environmental Benefits in Luang Namtha. village and household level. it is expected that minimal impacts will take place. through a longitudinal study of the same families over three years. as original design was too time and cost intensive. villagers’ statements were cross-checked with available financial records. social and environmental impacts. • Sales of wildlife were tracked as indicator of respect for wildlife conservation. This was scaled back from original design. low quality housing and low access to public services. Subsequent results of initiative were measured after three years in craft. Conclusions: Day 1 Nico Janssen and Eric Korsten (SNV) 8 . but because this program is of a low scale. • A census was carried out as baseline. per village. which dictated data be collected every six months.communities has been a key feature of this project. To overcome this. How tourist income was spent was also collected regularly. which takes up a great deal of time and resources. Intensive M & E is particularly costly. Monitoring Pro-Poor Tourism’s Financial. per family. participation. • Income levels were calculated per person. and per person involved in tourism industry. • Success factors: ensuring community participation. • Sales of antiques and heirlooms were tracked as indicator of respect for cultural heritage. social and community development indicators. Difference in spending between wet and dry seasons was noted. • Majority of local population on Coconut Coast survive on half the average Brazilian income. Lao PDR: Steven Schipani (ADB) • Outline of $12 million PPT development project in Lao PDR. • Household questionnaire (baseline and follow-up) had economic. culture or environment? Do tourists visit too often? Are people uncomfortable with tourists taking photos? • Challenges of methodology. Challenges to integration within mainstream tourist industry include lack of qualifications. • Data was then auto-processed and analysed through statistical software package SAS.
2. hotels. made by independent tourists and wholesalers. but need more focus on interventions and assessment of impacts. there is a secondary set of buying decisions (made by tourists. • Market-driven economic sustainability is the key – there must be demand. • Restating purpose of conference: to find common ground. allowing us to focus on interventions. and target these. • Is ‘trickle down’ the best model for pro-poor impact? Or can we target our interventions for maximum pro-poor benefit? • Tourism is a ‘double market’. need to focus on measuring pro-poor impacts. tourist operators etc. Understanding different market segment’s motivations in choosing destination is imperative. we will agree on some core indicators. social and cultural impacts are all important. Designing for Impact John Marsh (the Prosperity Initiative) • Introduces Prosperity Initiative – community-interest company registered in UK. to find out which products create more propoor impact. but also Core Metrics – what is the key measure with which to gauge our impact? • Return on Investment – donors invest money in development work. What are the products and segments of sector demand? Who and where is the market? • Competitiveness – if you can’t compete in market. • Challenge of keeping focus on pro-poor tourism development. and find ways to simplify the VCA process. There are two nodes: 1. • Also need to measure impact yield by market segment. but as integral to the process. How can we get best pro-poor value from a set of resources? Core Metrics can be used to measure yield. PI is interested in making markets work for the poor. need to optimise local market for pro-poor benefit. • Today will focus on baselines. backpackers) might be more valuable than attempting to boost overall tourism numbers. reflecting economic. What are the costs of sustaining this share of the market? • Once the destination has been chosen. We need to think about the economics of impact. These will be presented to the conference. Can many different projects to adopt common indicators? DAY TWO Recap from Day 1 and Objectives for Day 2 John Hummel (SNV) and Kate Lloyd-Williams (IFC-MPDF) • Yesterday’s sessions revealed that lots of diagnostics have been done. • Another goal of the conference is to agree on a core set of indicators. you can’t gain economic benefits. • Environmental.• Complexity of the value chain and system chain of tourism development is evident. Agreeing on a set of core pro-poor indicators during this conference would be a major move forward. impact management and increasing tourism yields. We must allocate this money in interventions with highest return on investment potential.) Influencing these spending decisions leads to more money in supply chains. • Demand: What segments of the market is it best to target? Targeting programs at sub-sections of market (eg. but if we don’t have economic sustainability the market collapses. making it more feasible. For this we need the involvement of tourism organisations and the tourism sector – not just as supporting agencies. How can our projects best compete with other products? • Need to develop strategic outlook to evaluate how big the potential market is. Buying factors – spending decisions as to which destination to go to. Different types of tourists spend money 9 . • Challenge of agreeing on what is feasible. and necessarily not the broader tourist sector. Are products consumed at destination created at destination? What existing markets can local people tap in to? Which markets/supply chains could be fostered? • Need to measure impact yield by product segment. Similarly. • VCs are not just about indicators. Once people arrive at the destination. which grew out of successful Oxfam Hong Kong program. • In groups. social and environmental impact.
Resource limited metric –as visitor numbers reach capacity (such as at Angkor). • Core Metrics for tourism: 1. rising prices. A tourism satellite account is necessary to further this line of inquiry. c) sustainable yield measures – including social and environmental measures. 2. Another way is to measure changes in the ‘poverty gap’ – average distance below the poverty line for a population. 2. 3. 6. or by different types of visitors. environments that can be impacted upon). Characteristics of destination (culture. 2. • Question: What benchmark are you using to measure poverty? Answer: We measure poverty line impact – how many people are moving across the poverty line. These sorts of movements across poverty line can then be mapped per dollar spent on the project. by building numbers of visitors. • With this information. Indicators used in TBL reporting can be useful for our research agenda. Researching day-to-day spend of market segments allows us to find the maximum areas of impact and select them for intervention. demonstrating its value. 5. This is in keeping with donor needs. Doesn’t tell us about leakages – what % of money spent stays in-country? Import content of goods and services purchased by tourists is very significant. 4. What percentage of total costs can be used on research? A high spend means quality assessments. Expenditure injections tell us nothing about social and environmental costs and benefits associated with different visitor market segments. Ignores the economic contribution of tourist expenditure to GDP. ‘Quick and dirty’ research is a necessity sometimes. we can assess the profitability of firms by tourism subsector. But it is not the total market spend that is important. and to demonstrate achievements. should always be an ideal behind our work. currency exchange shifts. what intervention would you use to move people out of poverty through tourism? Answer: This depends on the scale of resources. Yield in Value Chain Analysis Professor Larry Dwyer (University of New South Wales) • The research informing this presentation was not conducted with a distinct pro-poor focus. eg. Triple Bottom Line reporting is useful for this. 7. • ‘What can’t be measured can’t be managed. 3. Ignores the economy wide impacts of tourist expenditure. Need to create most value per unit of resource. Neglects the aggregate cost of providing services to tourists. we can build an expenditure matrix and identify the ‘most preferred’ and ‘least preferred’ market segments. we need to focus on extracting a higher pro-poor spend from existing visitors. There must be a base of evidence and benchmarking to justify intervention. • Limitations: 1. or on return on capital. and their spending. Yield as financial return: for this. b) Economy-wide impacts of tourism. need to think about maximising the impact on poverty in general. We should attempt to measure the injected expenditure by dollars per visitor per night. 4. This is measured through a tourism satellite account. Doesn’t tell us where sales revenues go – what were tourists spending their money on?. employment. • Sustainable Yield: CRC (Co-operative Research Centre) has devised four sets of variables to measure these. Policy implications are clearer to see when mapped. 2.in very different ways. environmental and social impact of a firm’s operation. emphasized by presenters at yesterday’s session. we need CGE (Computer Generated Equilibrium) models. Yield as sales revenue: the standard yield measure in PPT. Management practices in destination (what are 10 . There is a need to measure net overall impacts of increasing tourism. Characteristics of tourists. as this is confused by numbers of visitors. National tourist expenditure doesn’t account for regional spending patterns. heritage. Characteristics of tourist activities (what kind of behaviour are tourists undertaking?).’ There is a need to find quantifiable yield measures. but how much do you really know about your destination? We need to become more efficient with research. • Question: Based on data. 3. • Standard measurement of yield is by expenditure by type of visitor by trip and by visitor night. Macro Yield Measures: a) economic contribution of tourism to the overall economy – GDP. Yield as sustainable return: return on economic. To map this. the information is relevant to pro-poor tourism. and is increasingly being implemented. For non-resource limited destinations. • Concepts of yield: 1. However. 1. It came in response to need for yield measures for Australian sustainable tourism sector. 4.
water use. and growing expertise to help develop TSAs based on government information. development and tourism activities have involved significant trade-offs. No method has been developed for ‘merging’ all these into a single measure for sustainability. the number of jobs created from tourism. impact. These figures show how important the economic impact of tourism is. social fabric and regional integrity from tourist impacts?). which can use the information to improve policy. Question: You mention that TSAs would be helpful. but include ethics and morality. The problem is how to combine an index with such different units. Data can then be passed on to government bodies. Seeking to include social and environmental impacts is also a step forward. so that residents can speak for themselves. So far. Outputs from different sectors with ‘environmental effects’ studies are growing. Question: Do we have any environmental impacts/footprints figures for developing countries? Answer: I don’t know if it exists in Cambodia. greenhouse gas emissions. Question: Do you think it would be more efficient to use Likert scales to measure levels of social benefit or impact on people. but many countries around the world have significant data available. Question: How can we manage sustainability and economic growth and social and environmental impacts at once? Answer: We’re all seeking the answer to this. map and think through the impacts of their accommodation/eating/shopping choices on energy use. but it would have been improved with geographical divergence data. for any significant economic development there has to be an environmental impact. Question: Are the problems we have with determining/integrating social yield the result of our being so used to static economic models? We might need a longer time-frame model to fully measure social impact. If this workshop can help develop a work agenda. Question: Is there any work being done which measures geographical distributions of environmental impacts? Answer: The particular study I used as an example was conducted on a national scale. How to measure sustainable social/ environmental yield? For social yield. allowing researchers to come to a deep understanding of what local communities value and what they are willing to trade for economic gain. How difficult are these accounts to establish? Answer: Not greatly difficult. ecological footprints etc. Effects can be both positive and negative. Answer: Surveys are moving towards contingent valuation. Yield is about improvements in all areas. • Tourism Satellite Accounts can trace tourism’s contribution to the GDP. this could be recommended to government. tax revenues generated by 11 . how can you offset the environmental impacts of your project? What is the industry thinking about this? Answer: This research identifies the environmental impacts that result from tourism. there are UNWTO guidelines to developing TSAs. Answer: Yes. These are not simple trade-offs. • National figures of tourism arrivals/spends in developing countries and Least Developed Countries begin to trace impacts on poverty in those nations. For environmental yield. survey resident perceptions of change.• • • • • • • • • • the types of regulations and management practices that seek to protect the environment. Determining economic impacts is a start. But there is no magic solution. Some impacts take longer to become obvious than others. Understanding and predicting the level of this impact means we make informed choices. and what are the opportunities and constraints of this? • UNWTO specializes on figures of tourism income and arrivals. there is a temporal element – do need different time frames. Trade-offs are inevitable: eg. rather than ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions? This would be particularly useful in cultures where saying ‘no’ is a problem. and how this impact continues to grow. Question: If you are not prepared to compromise on economic yields. not just economic. characteristics of tourism human resources. Perhaps we will have to start accepting lowered economic value for more environmental value. Tourism Statistics and VCA Indicators Marcel Leijzer (UNWTO) • What data regarding tourism’s contribution to poverty reduction can be extracted from national tourism statistics.
Group 2: Environmental Impacts • Any indicators to measure environmental impacts must take note of the impact of travel to and from a destination. good governance. and how to manage forced migration. • Within the group. • Recommendation: It is a good idea to discuss the need for these indicators. • Need to measure the environmental impacts of different market sectors. it is necessary to monitor both positive and negative indicators. • It is important to monitor both the incomes and costs of social analysis. Also measure local and foreign impact on infrastructure. family. It is very difficult to develop a TSA for Least Developed Countries – the data is not available. and so the industry-wide level to which it alleviates poverty. need to trace the social patterns of migration – where one member moves to find work. • Comment: One of the issues faced in Mekong countries is forced resettlement. Also. leading to an influx of migrants. The many different methodologies currently being used to measure tourism’s impact means that it is difficult to compare studies. It would be interesting to do more local population surveys. 2) Environmental Impacts. What about cultural and political categories for indicators? • In terms of individual indicators. nationalities etc. nutrition. and is very expensive to collect. Group Discussions: Developing Common Indicators for 1) Social Impacts. foreign exchange payments for imported goods and services and internal leakages. and move further in discovering the population’s feelings about tourism. so indicators need to see what land tenure systems are in place. as based on markets. 12 . All these give large-scale picture of tourism’s impact on national economies. on a national level. or whether this was not practical or necessary.• • • • • • tourism industries. which can give a more detailed account of the pro-poor impacts of tourism. How can we minimize these? A 5% margin of error is still high – 10% is highest that could possibly be accepted. levels of community organization and empowerment. Challenges: To develop methodologies to extrapolate data from VCAs on tourism’s total poverty reduction impact. what happens to the rest of the family? How does this impact compare to the economic benefit of moving for work? • Comment: The complexity of this field means that there is a lot of knowledge in this room and in networks coming out of it. TSAs can be very useful when linked with VCAs. Group Presentations and Lessons Learnt: Group 1: Social Impacts • When measuring social impacts. levels of healthcare. We should have workshop to bring models used in other parts of the world into context and use. there was disagreement whether there was a need to have consistency across VCAs. There was a call for more discussion about indicators. so are not actually the poor we seek to target. access to water resources. • Ambiguity of ‘social’. • Comment: We all do visitor satisfaction surveys. considering the different needs of different countries. studies would be easier to compare. This can account for a large percentage of outputs in terms of environment. health. and 3) Economic Impacts. If we could agree on methodology. Group 1 response: The group also discussed the need for migration to be monitored. Need to be careful about margins of error. what regulations can manage it. to see what happens to a local community which becomes a tourist destination. • Improved infrastructure can act as indicator of social benefit: eg. you can use levels of education and training. Measuring the industrywide effects of tourism doesn’t specifically indicate pro-poor benefits. gender involvement. Constraints: Those people with jobs in the formal tourism industry are usually above the poverty line anyway. There is not enough integration and coming together. thus overcoming difficulties caused by high margins of error.
expenditure in formal and informal sectors. We would then need to measure how this changed environmental impacts. as in restoring or building the environment because of its tourism potential. This would allow us to use data from other sectors of the development field. that real purchasing power may sometimes fall despite increased monetary income. or level of use of renewable resources. how much income from employment is supplementary. or at least translatable in a consistent way. What impact will they accept from tourism? • A possible way of managing environmental degradation is the introduction of environmental taxes. • Comment: Trading off and integrating economic vs. society and economy all impact on each other (as in the issue of land tenure. So we need indicators that take this into account. for example. since tourism began to take off. and 3. • Indicator of environmental impact in presence or absence of regulatory environment – measures. This means that we compare actual income derived from tourism against potential income from all other sources. • Also need indicators for positive environmental impacts. • Comment: To measure economic impact. This fails to capture some impacts of economic growth. What data to look for. • Comment: Also need to take opportunity costs into account when measuring economic benefit. Group 3: Economic Impacts • Discussion focussed on 1. sellers) and indirect supply chains (away from tourist interface). and look at the social impact of environmental degradation. Government needs to be taken into account. Where to look for data on economic impacts. • Where: There was broad agreement to look within both tourism supply chains (hotel employees. • What to look for: data on employment (salaries. We need to graph the growth against the loss in other areas. expenditure from tourists (area and national). laws. for example). full time equivalencies). • Environmental impact measurements should also take the poor into account. How to look for data on economic impacts. • Measuring environmental education – what kind of environmental education do different types/segments of tourists have? • Measure the limits of acceptable change of both local communities and tourists. But these second studies often fail to take into account changes in prices etc. to ensure that terminology is consistent. other impacts – As volume of tourism increases. • How: need to be conscious of geographical and social variables of the data we collect – Importance of disaggregating data. Also need links with other sectors – such as Agricultural sector. • Finally. to provide a synthesis of 13 .• Measuring pollution levels in water or chemical pollution a possible indicator of environmental impact. enterprise level and household level Synthesis discussion led by Nico Janssen and Erik Korsten (SNV) • What do we want to achieve in this conference? • Building towards the same way of looking at value chains. we cannot look at these areas in isolation – environment. • How: Terminology is important – need consistency within sector. inevitably social and environmental impacts will occur. LUNCH BREAK Core set of Indicators for Tourism VCA – at sector or destination level. • Need to investigate the possibility of measuring an annual renewable harvest. you must complete a baseline study before implementation of project. regulations and how they are managed or implemented. 2. and then revisit to see the differences. resources/assets that are being consumed to meet economic demands – need to look at yield rather than usage.
while this is true. social and environmental indicators are agreed categories. This list would have to be the most essential indicators. Question: Will the agreed indicators apply to all projects and national organizations? Is it desirable to have a consensus of indicators? Different objectives of donors make this an even more complex question. Build up a consensus on core set of indicators for tourism value chain analysis taking into account demand. as people are raised out of poverty. perhaps it would be better to simply focus on the economic indicators? This comment was weighed but other participants felt that other indicators were too vital to be ignored. Audience discusses whether it is possible for a list of common indicators to be agreed upon at this meeting. 2. but we need to measure these at several levels – enterprise. • Reach a consensus on how to measure the core indicators and what are the data inputs required (perhaps this conference will only begin this process. perhaps the table of indicators should be attempted first. Education as an indicator of social benefit to society – How does tourism facilitate the process of a society becoming more educated? Education helps people move out of poverty. A member of the audience responds that.) • Discuss the next steps for tourism value chains and impact measurement: How to integrate the results of tourism value chains into tourism policies. Then. Challenges to using a common set of indicators: 1. against which we can measure achievement. We also need to look at specifically pro-poor indicators. while this was an important issue. Each cell is further split into mainstream indicators and pro-poor indicators (See Appendix). Other participants felt that. As this is a very complicated task. in addition to mainstream economic indicators. What is an indicator? What is the expected impact we are looking for? Increased employment? Increase income? Need to define starting point and common goals of pro-poor tourism. at destination level is the need to measure travel around the destination. The environmental impacts group from previous session agreed that. Clarification sought on what is meant by ‘mainstream’ and ‘pro-poor’. for which a short list of agreed core indicators would be useful. table has headings economic. At enterprise level is need to measure emissions for hotels and guesthouses. Participants suggest studying specific presentations from yesterday. Also. industry and household. The broad range of projects being conducted. Choosing which • 14 . On the y axis. Economic. 3. Indicators for the same projects will change over time. and other participants fill in over the coming four weeks. while pro-poor refers to the specifically pro-poor elements of this larger industry. Indicators need to be region-specific. Presents audience with a table. national. Priority is to reach consensus on core indicators (perhaps 5 from each category) today. 4. Also the need to define ‘indicators’. Suggestion that financial/non financial/context is a more valuable way of dividing the indicator axis than economic/social/environmental. supply and yield indicators. especially related to impact management? Challenge of merging all the different types of indicators that came out of yesterday’s presentations. to build momentum of this project.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • tourism value chain work conducted by various development partners. On the x axis. which presenters should fill in immediately for discussion. and at household level is need to measure how households utilise natural resources to service the tourism industry. table has headings sector level. The first thing we need to define is who is ‘poor’. The reason for agreeing on a common set of indicators is to enable the comparison of similar initiatives across destinations and countries. at sector level mainstream they would need to measure environmental costs of travel to destination. enterprise level and household level. and build on this in future. social and environmental indicators. which we cannot do without. how is ‘pro-poor’ defined? Answer: Mainstream refers to the whole tourism industry objective. most donor aims do have broad similarities. and noting the indicators used there. to broaden our focus. strategies and master plans? Is a toolkit for tourism VCA and indicators needed to guide future work. so that we know who we refer to when we talk of ‘pro-poor’ impacts. and how this differs between market segments. destination level.
5. Similarly. Another key indicator is return on investment. can we agree on a set of agreed results we are striving for? Clarification from John Hummel that. at the national and international level. Agreement on a short list of essential indicators would mean savings in research budgets. How much is spent per person. Agreement that this forum is too short. Kate Lloyd-Williams affirms that she and John Hummel will look into follow-up in the future. and so perhaps a tourism task force within the broader conference would be useful. perhaps we could agree on impact areas that we are going to be looking at. A reader is distributed in conjunction with the conference. Jim Macbeth (Murdoch University) agrees that poverty is more than an economic issue. An agreed set of indicators would be a starting point from which individual projects could deviate. Issues such as poor people’s access to natural resources cross environmental. If we are agreed that deciding on a common set of indicators is too ambitious for this afternoon. in hard copy from the University of Hawaii website. UNWTO indicators. Strategy and Master Plans: Presentation followed by discussion. research from involved Australian universities. another for those managing products. and agreements in the literature tabulated before any agreement can be reached. Marcel Leijzer (UNWTO) 15 . Another member of audience suggests that. Employment is fielded as another indicator for both economic and social impact. Our definition of success may not be what the community is hoping for. and organise a follow-up from this meeting. John Hummel (SNV) agrees. These can then be brought together to form a working list of indicators. as less data would be collected. Alison Kaye Rossetto (IFC-MPDF): USAID hosted a VC workshop across all industries earlier this year. while we may not agree on a set of indicators today. while there is a lot of existing literature on the field. and others. This year. During that workshop there was agreement that a core set of metrics across all industries would be useful for benchmarking and comparisons. and then add more indicators that are tailored towards the project. We should focus on agreeing on a very few basic indicators. For this. then we can agree on their use. Yin Soriya (SNV) suggests that the indicators applied at community level are imposed by outsiders. Erik suggests the conference organisers take this plan into action. Steven Schipani suggests that. if the indicators did not apply.• • • • • • • • • • • • • indicators to use is also based on the type of data collected in each study. too. Attempting to distinguish and isolate indicators into three separate boxes. we need to look at the triple bottom line – what social and environmental impacts are being made. Integrating Tourism VCA in Tourism Policy. and the issues are too difficult. It would be useful for our tourism VCA community to plug into that broader discussion. For these people. There is need to look at several other things before similar discussions are reconvened: ST-EP indicators. but mentions that tourism is a specialised field. to see where they fit in to a broader range of VC thinking. social and environmental impacts can be more important than economic gain. and take them to other VCA conferences. donor needs. to come to consensus. The literature on the field needs to be examined. We now have to set achievable goals based on the diagnostics. What is the purpose of identifying indicators? Lobbying donors has one set of purposes for indicators. ultimately. not just the local. which is available on CD-ROM. an annual VC conference is held in Chiang Mai. and will soon be available as a download from SNV website. social and financial boundaries. Audience is made aware of an SNV-University of Hawaii project on Monitoring & Evaluation in community development projects. the table of agreed indicators we are working on would be useful. Presenters should decide on which indicators were most useful in their projects during the rest of the afternoon. and also to build on from studies conducted in similar contexts in different industries. the most important indicator is how much the villager is making from our tourist intervention. and what are the benefits of this spending? In addition to economic impacts. but our interventions often have to be based on building economy. and a small group of key indicators would allow us to compare or achievements. the reader was about similar topics. most of it focuses on the diagnostics.
Tourism sector is very fragmented. Strategy and Master Plans: Chaired by Marcel Leijzer (UNWTO) with panel of Mr. Laos). Thaviphet Oula (Laos): Laos has developed a 10 year strategy. • VCAs also allow for monitoring and evaluation of interventions. what are they? • Mr. • While governments are always involved in tourism development.• Governments play a crucial role in developing and managing tourism. such as labour. • Reiterates ‘what can’t be measured. 2005-2015. community wellbeing and cultural richness. 16 . and a 5 year plan for tourism. • Mr Pelden Dorji (Bhutan): Bhutan has a 2 page tourism policy. and so requires government involvement. and not just Angkor. elaborating specific components such as ecotourism development strategies. Mr. Governments are responsible for functions necessary to sustainable tourism. The most recent documents begin to refer to specific poverty reduction aims. especially through eco. especially in rural areas where most of the poor live. marketing strategies etc. and making it more sustainable. Bhutan) What tourism plans and policies do each of the three nations represented here have? And what types of indicators are part of this? General indicators or specific? If specific. There are also seven action plans in total each with specific objectives. Tourism is one of the sectors of the economy affecting social development. Policy: concise document focusing on vision over 10-20 years. an elaboration of time frame. 2006-2015. and outlines plans to boost tourism. The main focus of the national tourism plan is poverty alleviation. Whilst the previous plan was never approved. • Mr Tith Chantha (Cambodia): Cambodia is very active in tourism development. • VCA indicators are not currently widely used in government planning documents. The government has set up a committee for poverty action through tourism. Master Plan: Most detailed of these. and is one of six priority sectors in industry. helping the appraisal of current pro-poor benefits per tourism activity. etc. budget. strategies and master plans from developing nations shows that only some have specific pro-poor goals for tourism development. 2. and social and cultural impacts. Governments can back different sustainability goals – whereas the developed world talks of sustainable management and congestion management. their level of involvement can vary considerably. developing nations talk more of biodiversity conservation. In terms of poverty reduction. The government has a 5 year National Social Development Plan. 3. • UNWTO publication (available from UNWTO website) ‘Twelve aims to be addressed in sustainable tourism plans and policies’. the plan for the next 5 years is in final stages of gaining the Prime Minister’s approval. • Reasons for Government involvement: 1. and an Ecotourism Strategy Action Plan. and some nations see tourism as only one part of a broader plan to boost incomes and generate employment. which is tabled in every province. Governments can provide the right conditions towards ensuring most of tourism’s impacts are positive. environmental legislation. which are useful at policy and planning level. can’t be managed. There is a Tourism Development Plan. Much of the sustainability agenda is of public concern. Cambodia focuses on community tourism. Pelden Dorji and Damsho Rinzin (Department of Tourism. and geographical translation of policy.and communitybased tourism. VCAs could prove very useful at this level. social equity. and governments are in a position to co-ordinate development.’ We must measure the success of our plans. which explains the tourism industry’s role in the economic development of the country. The government also seeks to encourage tourism diversification. and analyze what is happening. This outlines that particularly useful aims for social policies and pro-poor tourism are local prosperity. • Overview of selected policies. Tith Chantha (Ministry of Tourism. Cambodia). Strategy: Explains how to achieve this vision. moving tourists to more destinations. Thaviphet Oula (National Tourism Administration. • Sketches differences between government documents relating to tourism. and Mr. education. Panel Discussion on Integrating Tourism VCA in Tourism Policy.
which outlines suitable product development. counts how many locals. All your countries have growth objectives. for example.thus creating employment. Rwanda. By the year 2015. Closing: John Hummel (SNV) and Kate Lloyd-Williams (IFC-MPDF) Thanks to MCs. more data about a broader range of projects has become available. and other such indicators. but what are the specific poverty reduction figures in your respective countries? How do Ministries feel about the fact that some data. presenters. • Mr. however. and some general indicators about growth. The government point of view is that data is important for decision making. • Audience question from Yin Soriya (SNV). conference organizers and participants. and also ensuring that all citizens benefit from tourism. and includes tourism forecasts. The government is working to boost community based tourism as a tool to bring benefits of tourism to the community level. Bhutan has a 100+ page master plan. additional rules needed to manage tourism. and strategies to meet targets. This is especially the case for projects supported by NGOs and other development partners. tourism research and statistics office. in the National Investment Strategy. 17 . These operators reap maximum benefits of tourism. • Mr Tith Chantha (Cambodia): There is a general lack of data in Cambodia. discussion leaders. Thaviphet Oula (Laos): Lao is missing tourism data in master plan. to show the effectiveness of tourism in poverty alleviation. Pelden Dorji and Dancho Rinzin (Bhutan): In Bhutan. Pelden Dorji (Bhutan): Bhutan has a broad 5 year socio-economic plan for the entire nation. Indicators are addressed at a broader level. Bhutan focuses on boosting tourism to remote areas. access to education. but we have support from development partners. It also outlines infrastructure needs. Since the development of the master plan. government aims to have that at 25%. • Comment by Mr. panel. The master plan also addresses risk management issues in the tourism industry. which. to make sure policy makers come up with good plans. These figures are for all industries. From the point of view of the government. This gives us idea of how communities can access alternative incomes. While there are no specific indicators to measure poverty.Question: What types of indicators are you using in Rwanda. There is no specific data on tourism’s effectiveness in alleviating poverty. addressed to Mr Tith Chantha (Cambodia): Government plans focus on poverty reduction. can be employed in nature lodges. and it is at this level that tourism comes in. all we have are the total percentages. is missing? Can you still manage what you want to achieve without these exact figures? • Mr. there has been a 15% reduction in poverty. • Marcel Leijzer seeks input from Jane Sebujisho Nakayemba. and the government cannot show what percentage of poverty reduction is the result of tourism. It outlines lessons learnt from previous 510 years. what are your indicators to show poverty reduction from tourism? Answer: The policy plan shows that the national level of poverty is now 35%. Tourism and National Parks Board. and how to diversify the products on offer. Cambodian policies have to pass by two levels – the technical level. and those which currently do not have high tourism receipts. We don’t see tourism as a main factor in poverty alleviation. which sets up a timeframe for achieving tourism development goals. Bhutan’s tourism industry is managed in such a way that every tourist comes through a registered tour operator. This data can then be presented to the National Assembly every year. Sometimes the technical levels make policy decisions (using data) that are then overturned or not approved by the political level. and how are you achieving these goals to stimulate investment? Answer: The Board looks at promoting tourism and conservation. In the last 15 years. and others. However. as opposed to internationals. NGOs and students to fill in the gaps. Finally. not only in pro-poor tourism but across other tourism-related sectors. and marketing plans. Bhutan then has an 11 page strategy paper. capacity building requirements. especially relating to poverty reduction. but as a means of supplementing the income of some communities. and the political level. and especially data which can show that tourism is working to alleviate poverty. infrastructure including roads. poverty is measured by basic social indicators like access to health. targets.
Increase local ownership of tourist infrastructure. Return on investment per person Social Indicators Mainstream: 1. Mainstream: 1. Community involvement in society Pro-poor: 1. Employment generated by tourism. How much do the poor earn from the tourism deal? 2. Salaries of poor people working in accommodation Mainstream: 1. Who has access/who is excluded from education? Pro-poor: Mainstream: 1.APPENDIX: Working Table of Common Indicators from Synthesis Discussion Note: This table was never completed nor agreed upon. the timeframe of the conference prohibited further progress. How many people involved in the enterprise? Mainstream: Pro-poor: 1. Number of linkages (eg: tourism & agriculture) 2. Increased local investment Mainstream: Pro-poor: 1. Pro-poor: Enterprise Level Mainstream: 1. Skills levels & intake Pro-poor: Mainstream: 1. Sales revenue of accommodation sector Pro-poor: 1. Generation of employment for poor people 2. Travel with the destination. Pro-poor: Environmental Indicators Mainstream: 1. Use of natural resources to service tourism industry. Pro-poor: 18 . Emission of different types of accommodation Pro-poor: Household Level Mainstream: 1. Pro-poor: 1. Increased local supplying the tourist market 3. 2. Access to education. Economic Indicators Mainstream: 1. Education & training 2. Cost associated with travel to destination Pro-poor: Sector Level Destination Level Mainstream: 1.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.